This new best of scares me. Here's why.

[Utoo]

 

[Tiger Edge]

The replacement U2 was made months ago:

 

[schnumi]

i havent heard them say it? again even if true, its just a true progression anyway for a VHS to be turned into DVD, i wouldnt call it "cleaning" up, especially while its already on tape

Yes you just keep a hold on your VHS tape, id rather take a new DVD release please.....

Or do you think it's silly to release a new POP dvd with DD 5.1, DTS, improved picture quality and more extra's?

 

[MrPryck2U]

Wow, someone actually hinted that Bono was in rehab.
That so fucked up it's not funny.

 

[MrPryck2U]

Oh, duh, I get it. LOL

 

[phillyfan26]

Question: why not wait longer and release 2000-2010? Would a contract specify YOU MUST RELEASE RANDOM BEST OF ALBUM IN 2006.

 

[Aygo]

^ Yeah! lol

 

[U2Fanatic4ever]

Was there a point in opening a separate thread when we already are discussing this?

Exactly!!!

why open another thread when there is a discussion thread on this already in this forum..

SHEESH!!!

 

[rjhbonovox]

Yes, it's a stupid, cash grabbing move, but that's not what bothers me so much.

I'm afraid that U2 is releasing this compilation so they can fulfill their contract. Why? Maybe because they're afraid they don't have a couple more albums left in the them. This reaks of those classic best of hits you see at CD stores all the time from classic rock bands.

I would not be suprised if we never see a Best of 2000-2010.

About time the band quit anyway. Musically bereft of any new ideas. Each release, best of or otherwise, is just tarnishing their once great reputation. The Rolling Stones are a joke and U2 are fast becoming the new Rolling Stones.

 

[Michael Griffiths]

Question: why not wait longer and release 2000-2010? Would a contract specify YOU MUST RELEASE RANDOM BEST OF ALBUM IN 2006.

I would guess the contract specified that the record company had the right to release it any year they felt like it. From my understanding, U2 gave full rights to Island Records for 3 Best Of releases, one of which included a combined Best Of album. And this is that album, by the looks of things.

 

[Michael Griffiths]

Re: Re: This new best of scares me. Here's why.

About time the band quit anyway. Musically bereft of any new ideas. Each release, best of or otherwise, is just tarnishing their once great reputation. The Rolling Stones are a joke and U2 are fast becoming the new Rolling Stones.

U2 just won, what, 15 grammy awards for their last two albums? And how many hit singles? How have the Stones done in comparison?

 

[rjhbonovox]

Re: Re: Re: This new best of scares me. Here's why.

U2 just won, what, 15 grammy awards for their last two albums? And how many hit singles? How have the Stones done in comparison?

Grammies....who fuc#in cares about Grammies. Oh yeah Billy Ray Cyrus and Garth Brooks don't they win grammies also! Winning Grammies doesn't tell me how good the music is. Achtung Baby never even won best album grammy and yet HTDAAB did! So on that basis HTDAAB must be a better album. Just goes to show what a load of bollox the grammies are. All they do is honour "past their best" bands and thats why U2 win a fistful every time they release anything remotely resembling an album. You watch, their "Definitive collection" will be nominated in the "best compilation by a band in their forties with a bass player called adam" award!

 

[Zoots]

Re: Re: Re: Re: This new best of scares me. Here's why.

Grammies....who fuc#in cares about Grammies. Oh yeah Billy Ray Cyrus and Garth Brooks don't they win grammies also! Winning Grammies doesn't tell me how good the music is. Achtung Baby never even won best album grammy and yet HTDAAB did! So on that basis HTDAAB must be a better album. Just goes to show what a load of bollox the grammies are. All they do is honour "past their best" bands and thats why U2 win a fistful every time they release anything remotely resembling an album.

Have to agree with this man here!

 

[Michael Griffiths]

Re: Re: Re: Re: This new best of scares me. Here's why.

Grammies....who fuc#in cares about Grammies. Oh yeah Billy Ray Cyrus and Garth Brooks don't they win grammies also! Winning Grammies doesn't tell me how good the music is. Achtung Baby never even won best album grammy and yet HTDAAB did! So on that basis HTDAAB must be a better album. Just goes to show what a load of bollox the grammies are. All they do is honour "past their best" bands and thats why U2 win a fistful every time they release anything remotely resembling an album. You watch, their "Definitive collection" will be nominated in the "best compilation by a band in their forties with a bass player called adam" award!

Ah, the trypical easy answer. Unfortunately, exactly what I expected. Well, ask yourself this, then: If U2 is indeed at the same level as the Stones, why don't the Stones ever win album of the year (or are even ever nominated)??? Shouldn't they be taking turns winning these awards, if this is the case (since they both belong to the "past their best" club)? I agree the Grammys are a joke, but one has to admit that artists who do well at the Grammys (and I'm not talking about one time only artists, ala Billy Ray Cyrus), but artists that do consistently well are usually relevant in pop culture -- whether you like them or not, whether they're good or not, doesn't really matter. I may not like Britney Spears' music, but she hasn't exactly dipped off the radar screen, has she? The same cannot be said of The Stones. That is the point. By the way, going by your logic, since they won a Grammy for album of the year for it, I guess The Joshua Tree was a crap album and was released by a band that was "past their best". Oh wait -- Bono was 26 at the time, and U2 were just beginning to hit stride. That's right.

 

[Salome]

U2 win a lot of gammies
sell a lot of albums
influence a lot of artists

but because you don't like their music anymore they have become a parody of themselves?

nice logic



andas Michael Griffith pointed out
THE RECORD COMPANY DECIDED WHEN THE BEST OFS ARE RELEASED


jees, do you people sit on your head and think with your bum?

 

[U2Fanatic4ever]

U2 win a lot of gammies
sell a lot of albums
influence a lot of artists

but because you don't like their music anymore they have become a parody of themselves?

nice logic



andas Michael Griffith pointed out
THE RECORD COMPANY DECIDED WHEN THE BEST OFS ARE RELEASED


jees, do you people sit on your head and think with your bum?

am thinking this maybe true.. especially after seeing this thread..

 

[rjhbonovox]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This new best of scares me. Here's why.

That is the point. By the way, going by your logic, since they won a Grammy for album of the year for it, I guess The Joshua Tree was a crap album and was released by a band that was "past their best". Oh wait -- Bono was 26 at the time, and U2 were just beginning to hit stride. That's right.

Anyway halfwitted imbecile could tell that The Joshua Tree is/was a great album. Whether it won Grannies or not is beside the point. Heres another album, Pop, that the grannies didn't like. A bit to leftfield for them half witted idiots to appreciate I suppose. So my point any argument that states that U2 are relevant and are producing influential music now BECAUSE they win fistuls of grannies is not valid as the Grannies count for shit!

 

[Yahweh]

Ive always wondered if ponkine and rjhbonovox are the same person....dont know why All I can say is its been very funny to read all the negativity about a band coming out with a greatest hits album...would any other group recieve such bad press from their own fanbase....hopefully not. I wouldnt blame U2 if they retired after reading some of the comments on this site over the last 9 years.

 

[Michael Griffiths]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This new best of scares me. Here's why.

So my point any argument that states that U2 are relevant and are producing influential music now BECAUSE they win fistuls of grannies is not valid as the Grannies count for shit!

No less valid than you assuming that I believe HTDAAB is better than Achtung Baby just because the Grammys didn't give it to Achtung Baby yet gave it to HTDAAB. That wasn't my point at all. The fact of the matter remains, most people who live outside the box of the U2 diehard appreciate their last couple records. Especially ATYCLB. And I think you'd find that most U2 fans like ATYCLB as well. The vocal minority is just that - a minority.

 

[sionil]

They should stop squeezing fans pockets. It's too much, the Zoo TV Sydney DVD, U2 By U2 Book ... and now they want us to buy this bulls*** with the same songs from the previous Best ofs?

No one is forcing anyone to buy anything.

 

[rjhbonovox]

No one is forcing anyone to buy anything.

Thing is, I have all the albums and singles. Its gonna have a hole in it with another worthless best of release if I dont buy it. I have just heard the saints song by green day featuring U2 and if this belongs on a definitive U2 collection then I have a 12" nob! The song is shit! Enough said!

 

[LMP]

The replacement U2 was made months ago:

Although, if I may, let me take off my assistant’s skirt and put on my Barbra Streisand in The Prince of Tides ass-masking therapist pantsuit, because I have a cheap MS Paint Replacement U2:

 

[quadcaster]

well this seems to be debunked with one of the most recent headlines: "U2 leaves island records"

fulfilling contract? yes.... so they can leave island records without legal complications

 

[U2Man]

Thing is, I have all the albums and singles. Its gonna have a hole in it with another worthless best of release if I dont buy it. I have just heard the saints song by green day featuring U2 and if this belongs on a definitive U2 collection then I have a 12" nob! The song is shit! Enough said!